United States v. Eulibes L. Cruz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a trial court’s invocation of the word ‘reasonable’ does not invariably plant the seeds of reversible error”
• holding that a district court did not commit reversible error or improperly apply the § 3553(a) factors despite using the word “reasonable” three times in describing the sentencing process
• “[A]ny error in describing the [aim of sentencing as imposing a “reasonable” sentence] was harmless.”
• “We give a properly calculated sentence within the guidelines, in which the district judge adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, a ‘rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.’”
• “[R]easonableness represents the standard of appellate review, not the standard by which a district court imposes a sentence.”
• “Merely by saying that the sentence he wishes to impose is ‘reasonable,’ a district judge does not necessarily commit reversible error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).